< 7 October	9 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subornation of false muster[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphaned since 2010. Google books has five hits for this phrase: two are wikipedia-based books and the other three have no previews. A text search one of the books-- the Behe book-- shows the phrase isn't actually in there. There are ZERO hits in google scholar. The Library of Congress has a PDF of the single source in the wiki article Winthrop's "Military Law and Precedents". Using control F to search the text, you will see (on pages 43, 147, 210) that the source doesn't say what this article claims. On page 210, for example the book says it means desertion or mutiny. Most google search hits about this mention a convicted tax felon trying to use it as a plea, which was rejected by the court. This concludes one to think the phrase is unnotable, lacking even five independent sources, and this article is wrong and/or a WP:HOAX. SalHamton (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This kind of thing doesn't establish it's even an actual term. I agree coverage is insufficient to indicate the concept meets WP:GNG. If it were an actual term, Wiktionary might be a better place. But it's not. JFHJr (㊟) 02:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. False muster is real military offense, at least in principle: either recording the presence of a soldier (or, potentially, a horse) that is not actually present, or recording the presence of a non-soldier as though they were a soldier. Subordination of false muster would therefore be illegally inciting someone to do one of those things. There's zero history of the term ever being used in that context, however. The only two times that it has ever been employed, it was offered (and rejected) as a plea in a US court proceeding, as part of a failed "sovereign citizen" defense. Try not to think about how to get from the real definition to that application. Regardless, although Hovind is notable enough to have an article and the term is mentioned in his article, the other individual who employed the phrase (Michael Didier) is not, and the phrase itself lacks any sort of independent notably regardless. If someone really, really wanted to keep this in some manner, it could probably be redirected to sovereign citizen movement, but the target would need a lot of cleanup in order to include this phrase as one of the failed legal strategies. I guess we could redirect to Kent Hovind as an alternative, as he is the only person of any real visibility to use the phrase. Or just zap it, as I doubt it would be missed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails WP:GNG. No particular value in redirecting. TJRC (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sovereign citizen movement as pseudo-legal jargon. The term has received some verifiable commentary and was used unsuccessfully as a defense on two occasions. — C M B J 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the nomination, there are only two book mentions: both are from wikipedia. The book you are referencing, Great Events from History, took that part word-for-word from the Kent Hovind article, which in turn is all referencing the single news article above. You can't write a wiki article when the one journalist doesn't even know what it means and references Webster's Dictionary for "muster." Moreover, that piece doesn't mention the sovereign citizen movement so there's nothing for an article or a redirect. The Pandas Thumb blog post both of us mentioned, even if it was a source, is just drawing again from the same one news article. SalHamton (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself clearly has no place here. I independently checked the article's sole citation (before seeing that you had done the same) and reached the same conclusion that it was almost certainly incorrect. However, I don't see anyone disputing whether the term was actually used in court and subsequently discussed by the public for its peculiarity, so I tend to favor redirecting users to the most closely associated article; though I'd be willing to support deletion if consensus continues to favor that option. Also, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Great Events from History is based on Wikipedia content: the book itself does not appear to attribute its content as such and it (or at least someone it's sourcing) talks about how this bizarre term became a subject of external commentary at one point. — C M B J 11:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I favor deletion over redirect. If it's redirected, when someone looks up "Subornation of false muster", they'll be sent to sovereign citizen movement, an article that doesn't mention the term at all. This won't be a service to Wikipedia readers. Better to have it turn into a search of articles that to redirect to an unhelpful one. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hovind and Didier's cases both seem to be categorically suitable for inclusion in the sovereign citizen movement article, so my support for a redirect assumes the stipulation that we are to describe them there upon closure. — C M B J 11:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Afikoman. MBisanz ^talk 18:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tzafun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several reasons for deletion:

- article is completely WP:OR. It is actually someone's research paper.
- It is a cut and paste of this thesis, and possibly a copyvio. (I don't see any evidence that the holder of the copyright has done anything to release the copyright to wiki). The talk page even clearly states that it is copied from there. (I tried to speedy based on copyvio, but it was contested so I'm going the slow route).
- Since the comment on the talk page claims to be from the author of said thesis, that combined with the WP:ELs makes this clearly a case of self promotion.
- The topic is already covered at Passover_seder#Tzafun_.28eating_of_the_afikoman.29, and I don't see how any of the WP:OR here adds anything substantial. In fact, much of the supposition is simply wrong. I've read a significant number of scholarly works on the passover seder, all far more reputable than this random essay, and none have echoed his conclusions on etymology. Bachrach44 (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This same content appears to have been deleted previously

Restore redirect Afikoman and protect - I'm not an expert of this subject but it seems that the author removed the redirect nearly two weeks after the AfD closed with consensus for redirecting the article to Afikoman. Judging by the page history, the author, Dr Wojciech Kosek2, has always been the only user editing the article significantly and appears to be the only area that they have edited. Now, as for the duration of the protection, I question what would be appropriate, the user obviously has good intentions but copying content (whether this article preceded the published pdf or not) is serious and inexperienced users removing redirects with no explanation concerns me. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, except for the copyvio accusation. The thesis that this article is copied from has a Creative Commons license at the end so copyright is probably not an issue here. Nevertheless, the ideas espoused in this article don't appear to be a mainstream interpretation (for example, the word afikoman is generally believed to be derived from Greek, not a supposed Hebrew compound word), and I generally agree with the rest of the nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf in question clearly states that it was copied from Wikipedia, not vice versa, so copyright is certainly not an issue, at least in relation to that document. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Afikoman and protect, per User:SwisterTwister. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR. Wikipedia is not a forum for thesis papers like this one, nor for self-promotion. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restor redirect, delete article per above --Jethro B 23:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect whatever is germane and sensible to the main section about this topic at Passover Seder#Tzafun (eating of the afikoman). Otherwise, too often, it reads like WP:OR, as well as violates WP:CONTENTFORK and even WP:NOTMADEUP, and WP:NOTBLOG. IZAK (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you aware that nothing in this article is germane to the topic of Tzafun? It is all the fanciful opinions of one writer, who references only himself. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yoninah: If indeed it is nothing, so then nothing will be germane then. But at least the name "Tzafun" itself (if nothing else) can be merged, right? Maybe there are one or two other granules that can be saved, let the final editors decide, if and when that happens. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article hasn't overcome the problems from the first AfD and there is excessive Original Research in the article. Seems better to start over this point. Tzafun means hiding the afikoman, distribute the Afikoman (the broken half of the middle matzah hidden at the beginning of the Seder). There is source material: New York Jewish Week April 11, 2003, Sun Sentinel April 7, 2009 [1]. Not a whole lot, but those will help if someone wants to rewrite the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure WP:OR. - MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's unanimous Wily D 08:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Miriamele[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fictional character from the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series of books that does not have any real world notability. Searching for sources, I am unable to find any mention of her that is not just part of a plot summary. The article, as it stands, consists of just pure plot summary, making it an unnecessary split from the articles on the individual books, which already detail the plot. Rorshacma (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - suffering substantial WP:IN-U issues. No suggestion of WP:N. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is excessive WP:Fancruft. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Building (Michigan State University)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article gives no indication of why the subject is notable, and none of the sources are independent of the subject. A Google search has found no independent sources. (At most a small portion of the information from the article could be included in Michigan State University College of Engineering, if desired.) --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing coverage-wise to indicate this building, among so many, passes WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with other non-distinctive university buildings. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Agree that a little pertinent info can be included in Michigan State University College of Engineering. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Science tenets, prayers, and statements[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not covered in reliable sources. Original research from a primary source. not suitable for merger. It's just quotes from a primary source Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. It would be like having an article on bible quotes. Falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OR based solely on primary sources. There is no way to judge the significance of individual list items without reliable secondary sources, and I doubt that any exist on which a list like this can be constructed. Also, a not very useful content fork of the main article on Christian Science. Falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and amounts to little more than promotion. Nothing worth merging elsewhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the preceding comments. There is nothing here which were it properly supported by reliable secondary sources would not be better placed in the main article. Jpacobb (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is applicable. The 3 main quotes in the article were copied from either Christian Science or Church of Christ, Scientist in order to reduce the size of those articles. Wikipedia has articles on Hebrew or Christian beliefs, creeds, prayers, etc. Although I grew up in the Christian Science church, I now belong to a main line Christian church and am not an apologist for Christian Science, nor am I an opponent of it. Most Wikipedians know absolutely nothing about Christian Science. What is the big deal about primary sources? There are many secondary sources on Christian Science such as Mark Twain's book of that title and many others, pro and con. If you want to quote a Bible text, you go to the Bible, not to a secondary source for a paraphrase. clariosophic (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are ~2 Billion main line Christians (articles like the Lord's Prayer are well sourced). There are ~100,000 Christian Scientists. The situations aren't exactly comparable. You need to show that the topic is notable, with significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I have to agree with Clariosophic on this one. At the very least, the article can be merged or redirected back to the original Christian Science articles. Or an ambitious scholar on the subject can probably expand on the subject further. I am not seeing a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE here, but rather WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing someone do original research. This article is simply someone copying and pasting bits of the primary source S&H into an article, there is nothing worthy of being merged anywhere. WP:GNG is what needs to be met. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed no such thing, as anyone who reads English will clearly see. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, what sort of weird article is this?!? Sorry but it is not acceptable a similar article here, this is an encyclopedia not a prayer book. Instead, this material could be successfully exported in WikiQuote. --Cavarrone (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No need for a reirect as the title is an improbable search term. There may be room for a factual article on the beliefs of Christian Science, as promoted by its founder Mary Baker Eddy, apart from the history of the movement and crticism of those beliefs, but this is not it -- Delete and start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Scottywong | gab _ 17:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hop on Pop (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unnotable band that does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NBAND. Their only releases have been on a label that, itself, was deleted from Wikipedia for notability concerns. All of the references currently being used consist pretty much entirely of blogs and first party sites. Searcing for additional sources brings up nothing usable. Rorshacma (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one review at Allmusic but nothing else. Doesn't meet any of our accepted criteria for notability. --Michig (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have found nothing about the band. Corn cheese (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Fails WP:NBAND and I can't find anything that would help it meet those criteria. --Batard0 (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Morstad[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is with a heavy heart that I nominate this article for deletion. While I have nothing against Dean Morstad personally (in fact, I agree with him on quite a few issues and may vote for him in November, since I live in MN), I don't think he satisfies WP:N for politicians just yet. Ole Savior didn't, and neither does Morstad since he hasn't received enough national media coverage. If Morstad runs again in a few years and gets more coverage, he'll be notable then. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that Morstad dosen't have significant coverage (he gets little more than a mere mention in the sources listed in the article) in reliable secondary sources, and thus dosen't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN or the notability guideline for biographies.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above comments, a google search did not provide any sources of note either. Does not meet qualifications for WP:POLITICIAN and notable biographies. Also written as an advertisement for the "candidate."Righteousskills (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - nomination was withdrawn (non-admin close). Stalwart111 (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 NLL season[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON.~~ No, I'm sorry, I messed up!^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I nominated this article for deletion before I realized how much trouble I was causing. I'm sorry! ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 20:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Transcendental Meditation movement. Relevant content can be merged from prior revisions under the redirect. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete (nominator) --Does not meet notabilty requirements of WP:CORP — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC) ~~Delete~~ --This article has multiple issues and has been discussed at length on the talk page with the end result being a consensus for deletion.[2] The crux of the problem is that the Financial Express is the only secondary source that uses the term and only in passing in a single sentence. The article was built on claims made at the web sites of so called subsidiary companies. For this reason the article does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CORP and should be removed as it is unreliable and misleading for our readers. A thorough analysis of the sources is given here on the talk page. And a discussion of its non-notability can be seen here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This term is sometimes used in a generic sense meaning organizations related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, with the g lower case. But that usage is subsumed under the article Transcendental Meditation movement. The proper noun Maharishi Group, which is claimed to be an $800 million conglomerate, seems to be nothing more than hype on websites of companies such as Maharishi Solar to make them sound more impressive. I have been unable to find any evidence that there's a corporate entity named Maharishi Group. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons of apparent non-existence of the entity described by the article - the 'subject' is WP:OR and conjecture. Having looked into this matter in some depth, it is apparent that there almost certainly is (or at least was) a commercial concern of some type entitled 'The Maharishi Group', as referred to in India's Financial Express. However, much of the article seems instead to be referring to entities of some kind for which no source can be found linking it to that particular commercial concern - or indeed to anything beyond occasional vague references to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or to Transcendental Meditation movement at best, and nothing more than a name with 'Maharishi' in it at worst - and this is even after removing nonsensical claims that the entire 'Group' was a "Non-profit conglomerate" based on a source that mentioned a 'Maharishi Group Venture... non-profit benevolent society' of some kind in passing - with no indication whatsoever of any connection to any other entity. The crux of the problem becomes clear in the article lede, which states that "Maharishi Group [is] also called Maharishi group, Maharishi Group Venture, Maharishi Group of Companies and TM organization", but fails entirely to source this statement. The connection between the various entities seems to be based on pure WP:OR, almost certainly larded with a generous layer of POV-pushing by followers of the late Maharishi. There is nothing cited to demonstrate that the entity described in the article exists as an entity, rather than as something cobbled together for Wikipedia by Google miners. As for the actual Indian commercial concern entitled 'The Maharishi Group', there seems to be little to indicate that it would meet WP:GNG guidelines, and there certainly aren't sufficient either in the article, or easily locatable on the web, to construct an article on it at present. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ATG is 100% wrong on the existence of the Maharishi Group, and TimidGuy arguments about it not being a separate corporate entity are irrelevant. There is no question that the "Maharishi Group" exists as a consolidated group. I addressed this on the talk page 2 1/2 years ago [3], when TimidGuy was inexplicably arguing that it didn't exist, in the face of sourced representations by the TM Organization itself about the existence and extent of the Maharishi Group. Apart from those self-promotional sources, the India Tax Court found that The Maharishi Institute of Creative Intelligence, one of the constituent members of the Maharishi Group, could retain its nonprofit status because its surplus (i.e profits) were being applied to construction of an office building to be used by various nonprofit organizations that were all members of the Maharishi Group and which worked together to advance the objectives of the consolidated group.[4] That being said, there are few third-party sources which reference the Maharishi Group, and those are largely in passing rather than having any substantive coverage. I don't think that there is sufficient substantive third-party secondary sources to support a separate stand-alone article on the subject. The material that is properly sourced here can and should be merged into the Transcendental Meditation movement article and this title redirected there. Fladrif (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the tax document called Director Of Income Tax vs Maharishi Institute Of Creative (25 October, 2004) mentioned in the comments above. This primary source, only mentions the Maharishi Group in passing and provides no conclusive evidence that the Maharishi Group exists except in the minds and records of the assessee/defendant: Maharishi Institute of Creative. (See Tax Doc excerpts below):

"He, therefore, required the assessee-society to offer its explanation in the matter and in reply, it was submitted on its behalf that the income earned during the year under consideration was, inter alia, applied for the construction of building which was allowed to be used by other societies of the same Maharishi Group for their charitable activities.
"In this regard, it is observed that there were number of societies formed broadly with the same aims and objects belonging to the same 'Maharishi' Group [sic] and in the Managing Committee Meeting of the assessee-society held on 4-1-1990, it was decided to work in cooperation with the said societies for achieving such common aims and objects and even the resolution to that effect was passed in the said Meeting as is evident from the extract of Minutes of the said Meeting placed at page No. 40 of the assessee's paper book."

(continued) And if it does exists where are the secondary sources that satisfy WP:CORP and give us info about this alleged company? They don't appear to exist. I've searched Google News/Archives, High Beam, Credo and Questia for substantive sources on this $700 million multi-national corporation and come up empty. Almost every source in the article is about other companies alleged to be subsidiaries. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Kiethbob says, we don't base article content on our own interpretations of primary sources - this has been one of the failings of this article, and should never have been allowed to happen. If there is anything which can be properly sourced to have a direct formal relationship with the TM movement, and it meets wp:weight requirements, it can be included in the TM article. So far, there is nothing in any of the sources for the article being discussed here that states that 'The Maharishi Group' as referred to by the Financial Express has any formal connection with the TM movement at all - and WP:OR based on documents of unknown reliability [5] certainly won't change this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Maharishi Group was hardly mentioned in passing; the relationship of the Maharishi Institute of Creative Intelligence to the group was the basis of the decision. The disclaimer ATG cites has nothing to do with the authenticity or reliability of the Tax Court decision. Forgive me if I wonder if the sudden urge to purge any mention of the Maharishi Group from Wikipedia has anything to do with recent press reports from India that the self-same Maharishi Group and Maharishi Institute of Creative Intelligence is currently embroiled in litigation and governmental investigations of alleged widespread fraud, forgery, malfeasance and misconduct involving the financial dealings of various Maharishi Group entities and their directors and officers, as the Maharishi's nephews and others fight over assets of the Group, mostly vast real estate holdings into which fundraising proceeds have been poured, while the charities themselves have fallen into complete disarray according to the reports.[6][7] Fladrif (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TimidGuy has challenged the validity of the Maharishi Group article since April 2010 [8] He was met with resistance from the article's creator, Will BeBack, who in Feb 2012 was admonished, topic banned and WP banned for his misbehaviors including the "harassment/outing" of TimidGuy. I mention this because TimidGuy may have have felt reluctant to press the issue with the very editor who was harassing him. In any case, more recently I have had the opportunity to lay bare the sources on the talk page and expose the article as baseless and out of compliance with WP standards. AfD is a standard procedure for discussing the merit of a given article's content. Assuming bad faith and criticizing editors who are here in good faith to improve WP and uphold its policies is not helpful to the process. Let's see what the rest of the community has to say.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again we are getting lumbered with WP:OR here. Fladrif cites two articles, one of which makes no mention of any 'Maharishi Group' at all, while the other uses the phrase once, without making its meaning clear. What does either of them usefully tell us in regard to the fundamental question posed: what exactly is 'The Maharishi Group'? Is it a corporation, as the Financial Express reports suggest? Or is this instead just a loose term for 'assets owned by (factions of) the late Maharishi's followers', as the India Today article that Fladrif cites seems to be suggesting? If it is the latter, it clearly doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Or at least, it doesn't merit an article that claims that it is some sort of corporation. We need sources that actually describe the group as an entity in depth, in order to justify the article - that is how WP:notability (organizations and companies) is established. We can't go around collecting sources about different entities, and lumping them all together as 'a group', unless we have a source that explicitly states that they are part of the same group. As for the ridiculous insinuations, I'll treat them with the contempt they deserve. Just plain stupid, and unworthy of further response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My initial reaction was easily passes WP:GNG due to a search bring up more than 100 news articles on "Maharishi group", the earliest being Maharishi In Manila Triggers Controversy (October 8, 1984) (referring to The maharishi's group) and Houston Chronicle March 17, 1993 (referring to a second group led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as operating the Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development, referring to the Maharishi group in the sense of all member of the Maharishi group, and a third group led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as operating the World Plan Executive Council. Each of these three entites could be the Maharishi Group but it is not clear which Maharishi Group would be the topic of the present article). Then I read TimidGuy's comment above and, sure enough, there are many sources for Maharishi group (lowercase "g"). Looking at the Maharishi Group (uppercase "G"), India Today, pg. 74, June 22, 1998, Spiritual Channel, by Namrata Joshi reads, "The country's first spiritual channel, Maharishi Channel, comes from Mahesh Yogi's Maharishi Group." Other sources note things like "The building has been largely vacant since the Maharishi group bought it from Marquette for $600,000 in 1994." and "The Maharishi group bought the hotel for $1.5 million in March 1995." and "The Maharishi group has its own incorporated city in Iowa called Vedic City." and "This is despite assurances from the Maharishi Group, the current owners of the plantation company that money would be given back to the investors". A recent article reads, "In January, the Srivastava brothers petitioned the Delhi High Court to win a stay on sales of land owned by various societies formed by the Maharishi Group."[9] Then I looked at the scope of the topic of the article. The article lead reads, "The Maharishi Group also called Maharishi group, "Maharishi Group Venture, Maharishi Group of Companies and TM organization was established by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1960s."
Wikipedia articles are limited to one main topic. This article seems to have multiple main topics. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There appears to be a financial fluidity between the entities named in the article, to where some of them may, at times be discrete entities, and, at other times, be merely an entity having two or more names. A reason for this appears to be that the"Maharishi Group" does not exist as a consolidated group of discrete entities. There is insufficient reliable source information for a stand alone article on such a topic. As a result, even if Wikipedia editors tried with care and though to decide what is and is not part of the topic per Wikipedia's core policies, they would be unable to without original research because what is and is not include in the scope of the article is subjective rather than objective. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is much more in the nature of adding 2+2 than original research. Writing an article about the largest relevant business grouping is our usual practice, and I do not think this different, except perhaps that the sponsorship is by a movement whose supporters have indeed made attempts to write an excessive number of little articles on Wikipedia. However, the reaction of putting everything to do with TM into one big article is excessive; this article is a reasonable level of aggregation. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry, but that makes no sense - we don't have any source whatsoever that asserts that there is a business grouping, never mind one that says that it is called 'The Maharishi Group'. We don't have sources that say anyone is 'sponsoring' anyone. We don't even have sources that state that there is any explicit connection between 'The Maharishi Group' (the company described in the Financial Express) and the TM movement. The whole thing is unsourced conjecture... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --Thank you DGG for your participation. Regarding your comment: "a movement whose supporters have indeed made attempts to write an excessive number of little articles on Wikipedia. However, the reaction of putting everything to do with TM into one big article is excessive; this article is a reasonable level of aggregation". I think there is a misunderstanding and I'd like to give the facts, if I may....... The TM navigation template contains 45 articles (the TM category contains 80+ articles) so we both agree that there are too many articles on the TM topic. Now... out of those 45 articles in the template, 29% of them (13 articles) were created by Will Beback including the Maharishi Group article currently under discussion. Out of the 13 articles created by Will Beback five of them have been cited by various editors (including myself) as being coatracks and/or lacking in notability for a stand alone article: Maharishi Group, Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Corp, Golden Domes, MERU, Holland, Neil Paterson (politician). So to summarize, Will Beback (guess you could call him a TM supporter if you want to) was the major contributor to the creation of "an excessive number of little articles" and others (like myself) have been encouraging "reasonable aggregation".see discussion here So we are in agreement on the goal and now clear on how the current array of articles was created. Disclaimer: I have created 3 articles in the TM nav template: Maharishi Effect (a fork), Nancy Lonsdorf and Transcendence (book). Best wishes,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my earlier comments on the MG talk page, and given the weakness of the sources to both identify and describe something called Maharishi Group. I am also surprised by DGG's statement above both in attempting to isolate and label a whole group of editors, fundamentally an incivility, and second here, "have indeed made attempts to write an excessive number of little articles on Wikipedia." Maybe this is worth checking to see who has created a lot of little articles related to TM on Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of metropolitan areas in Thailand by population[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concepts for all of these "metropolitan areas" / "megalopolis" / "urban agglomerations" are unverified and not supported by any reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Hatyai–Songkhla Metropolitan Area. Note that there have been proposals for an act to establish "Maha Nakhon Chiang Mai" as a metropolitan self-administrative area, which is not at all related to what the article describes. Paul_012 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference in the list but it seems to be dead. If it can not be recovered, delete as unsourced. If it can, depends on whether the government has a way to define metropolitan areas.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The dead link appeared to be only supporting the population figure of the city of Nakhon Ratchasima, and likely contained nothing to support the existence of the claimed agglomeration. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tornado (dinghy)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no sources found. Deprodded without comment by IP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability established.TheLongTone (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know about our small sailboat notability standards but standard directories do list this boat. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a dinghy that appears in directories of sailboats, thus being very similar to pretty much all other small dinghies here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for that response. It is, however, not relevant in the least degree. The boat has independent notability. It is a small boat, but that is not relevant either. It is verifiable, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be a sailboat, not a dinghy, and searces for '"Texas Tornado" sailboat' may turn up more applicable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. "thing" added above. In the UK it is referred to as a sailing dinghy, as are all our small sailing craft. I imagine the US uses the term sailboat? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was asserted above (without ref) that this little sailboat appears in directories. How many different models or instances of sailboats of this small size are there or have there been in the world, which have been listed in some directory? That does not sound like the significant coverage expected when judging notability. Verifying that a little boat exists does not establish that it should have an encyclopedia article, So far no one has linked to multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. The search links at the top of the page have too many false hits dealing with tornadoes, Texas, and sailboats but not to this particular one for it to be practical for every person who comes by this AFD to search through pages of them. Edison (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A listing in a directory proves its existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Fragile (Yes album). MBisanz ^talk 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mood for a Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mood for a Day

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not one of Yes's notible songs. It was never a single and it never won any awards. It has little to no cultural impact. Worst of all the article has no citations and is an non expandable stub. Also the content it does contain says almost nothing about the song. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not enough material to support an individual article, it would make sense to simply redirect this to Fragile (Yes album), the song's parent album. It's a plausible search term, and WP:NSONGS suggests that non-notable songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist". Gongshow ^Talk 05:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fragile (Yes album). There are several books about Yes, some of which discuss it briefly: I added a couple of refs, and Bill Martin's Music of Yes: Structure and Vision in Progressive Rock also apparently contains a discussion, but I don't think this quite meets notability requirements for a standalone article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but thank you for at least giving this article some citations. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Fragile (Yes album) per Gongshow and Colapeninsula. WP:NSONGS also states that "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Cliff Smith 15:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects by the 12th, I'm merging and redirecting. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). TBr and ley 19:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Larkin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. A search of the Google News archives only brings up obituaries for this person. Lengthy precedent has established that obituaries alone are not enough to satisfy the "Significiant Coverage" portion of the GNG. Fails WP:PROF as well. We need more than an obituary and a university website. A notable academic would be covered in the news or in scholarly sources. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote the stub because I think he passes WP:PROF. For starters, most profs do no get lengthy obituaries in high-circulation newspapers (but Larkin got one); that disproves your WP:GNG theory. Arguably he passes PROF #1 with three of his works: his PhD thesis got published as a book and was also translated. The Independent obit says it "is still the standard account of the subject" (presumably in the English literature though). His last two books each had a 2nd edition. He also passes the rather format test #5 (named chair) and #3 as Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (the latter is not as distinguishes as a FRS, but adds to his formal recognition in the field.) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An obituary doesn't satisfy the GNG. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Anyway, it passes PROF for the reasons I enumerated above. And if you are suspicious about the high level of praise in that obit, rest assured that the opinion about his 1st book I mentioned is reflected elsewhere. [10]: "A classic on French history of secularism is Maurice Larkin, Church and State after the Dreyfus Affair: The Separation Issue in France (1973)." So it's not just one journalist's opinion. And for his penultimate book, the publisher quotes a snippet from an American Historical Review (of the first edition) [11] "there is no equivalent work in English or French that covers the history of France during the last fifty years with such depth and originality". I was actually quite conservative in not adding any lavish praise to this article lest I be accused of "spam by stealth" or other wikijargon du jour. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep adding to the above: For historians and others in the humanities it is always advisable to check scholarship in the form of books and their institutional holdings. Larkin's output/impact were obviously tremendous, with holdings statistics from WorldCat: Man and society 916, France since the Popular Front 790, Church and state after the Dreyfus affair 701, Religion, politics, and preferment in France since 1890 395, ... These numbers show a conclusive pass on WP:PROF #1, entirely independent of GNG. Nom may wish to withdraw. Keeping this AfD open any longer will only be wasting time. Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoloz Phirtskhalava[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Original afd was closed no consensus due to disagreement as to whether or not the Georgian top flight is fully pro. In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot assume that it is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without any reliable sources that supports that the Georgian league is fully pro, this article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:SIGCOV. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statsit[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorial prose has been added and removed at various points in the page history, but never replaced with anything substantive and verifiable. The "Most Democratic Workplace" bit is a joke award conferring zero notability. I doubt a 15-employee, 4 year old company will be notable unless they have a strong public-facing presence. Kilopi (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Writing more than one !vote keep does not give any more weight to your arguments and only serve to confuse things. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawish[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established in article. Rafy talk 14:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable family as the article indicates. That much is sourced at least. The article still needs work, but it certainly isn't worthy of being deleted. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name comes from Ottoman tr:Çavuş and it is widely used as a surname in several countries in North Africa and the Middle East without necessary being related, just as you'll find thousands of families named Najjar and Haddad, etc.

None of the sources mention this certain family from Jerusalem. This one mentions a certain Shawish who owned a large library, nothing about the family. The Ha'aretz doesn't even mention anything about this family. Similarly other references concern members of other families in Egypt.--Rafy talk 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's clear from the graph (which was built from This article ) that the family had branched from "Alhusaini" family which originally came from Arabia. But the 1st mention of the Shawish family which is the one most listed people belong to, was from Jerusalem. All members listed are notable and well referenced. From politicians, scientist, scholars to business leaders and sport people. I see some weaknesses in the article and it needs some work, but its definitely not for deletion. Kaioo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.202.226.158 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have "undone" the deleted entries to the page. 40+ notable members of the family are the source of the importance of the article. They are notable, well referenced (105 sources) and justify the existence of the article. Please do not remove them before reaching an agreement in here. The article, for sure, is worthless without the notable family members list. I am keen to adjust the article, do more research and correct the wrongs (basically put in the work). So lets make a list of weaknesses and agree on it and I will take it from there. --Kaio™ (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reviewing, Wikipedia:Notability_(people), and subsection Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people I see that almost all the names listed in the notable list meet the criteria for notability. Please highlight in here if some don't and I will do the research to make the point stronger or delete the entry. --Kaio™ (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you didn't know that casting votes logged out is considered WP:SOCK. The source mentioned by anon is an opinion article written by a self described "secondary school students' counsellor and Islamic preacher". Even in that poor source nothing is mentioned about the family itself, except as a surname of a certain Sheikh renowned for his library.

If you can't bring enough notable references to support this article, i.e. Published books, Peer reviewed journals, Encyclopaedia of Islam, etc. I can't find any reason why any encyclopaedia should contain this entry.--Rafy talk 19:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can take the article section by section.. most of the names in the notable list are notable and referenced, which are the core of the article. Which section are you exactly referring to in here? What is the issue here? is it that the family origin not well established with references? This article is definitely not for deletion and meets many of the acceptable article criteria, so lets talk about how to make it better. ( BTW, This is not SOCK, I voted without logging in 1st time because I didnt have my password.. now I do. Thanks for the note anyway)..--Kaio™ (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about a list of people, it's about the Shawish family itself. So if you want to keep the article bring reliable sources about the family, otherwise convert it to a WP:DAB.--Rafy talk 13:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to that, the focus to be on the (one branch of) family and its origins weakens the article. I would suggest changing the name to "Shawish surname" (which will include referenced information on the many origin and branches of Shawish surname as well as a list of notable Shawish persons) OR "a list of notable people with Shawish surname" (which will include only a referenced list of notable Shawish persons without much being discussed about their family branch and/or its origin). Maybe this will bring along a good solution. I would go for the 1st option as to keep some of the current references relating to the family from Jerusalem and to encourage others to bring along new referenced material on other origins of Shawish surname. This will improve the richness and usefulness of the article --Kaio™ (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Indigenous Peoples of Taiwan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay-like. Similar to Taiwan/Demographics of Taiwan Noom (t) 15:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Topic is notable as such (and actually quite interesting) and I don't see a lot of overlap with Demographics of Taiwan, although I agree that large parts are written in a subjective essay-style. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This topic is mostly covered in Demographics of Taiwan and Taiwanese aborigines already, and far better. For example, none of the cites given seem to actually support much of anything stated. More importantly, the article is not and has never been an actual WP:OUTLINE; this is exactly what an outline is not, and the notable topic is not wide enough to require an outline. See also Outline of Taiwan for what is an outline. Compare Outline of Australian Aborigines. JFHJr (㊟) 05:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it is well-cited, the article as a whole is original research (specifically WP:SYNTHESIS) and would be impractical to salvage or merge. §everal⇒|Times 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Demographics of Taiwan covers this much better. SalHamton (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Immortal (band). MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal (EP)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the bands article. This should have been handled with a redirect or through normal editing before rushing it off to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Corn cheese (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Immortal (band) per WP:NALBUMS. This is a probable search term and redirects are cheap. Cliff Smith 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fairy Meat. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Leaton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability other then did voicework on game. also article is completly unreferenced. Tracer9999 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Various searches turned up no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per total lack of WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairy Meat. I found a source proving he is the game's creator, so this is a possible search term. Can't find any other significant coverage; on a side note, not sure why the original nominator mentioned voice work, as I don't believe Leaton has done anything like that. He's a game designer. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Duffbeerforme's argument is far more convincing than the slew of SPA votes. Consensus is to delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -Scottywong | chat _ 17:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Aquilina[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. The only "news" hit on her is the bit at Gozo News, but the reliability and independence of this source has to be questioned, as it merely quotes Aquilina's management on various facts, rather than stating the facts outright. (This is too much like a primary source for comfort.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that as Aquilina is an emerging artist there isn't much research that can be done on her. What is normal Wiki protocol for this ? If Wiki can carry an article on a band/singer who have only released one album/EP/digital release then the article should stay, if she carries on in the music industry the article can be expanded in the future. On that basis I propose keeping it included - Yorkshiresoul (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The protocol is that articles about musicians must meet the criteria for notability for bands, or the general notability criteria. The criteria in both cases are fairly clear, and Aquilina does not meet either. If there are other articles on musicians of similar stature, who have not yet achieved the necessary notice to be considered notable, that is not a valid reason to keep this article. It merely argues that the other articles probably shouldn't be here either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject still not any more notable than the last two times this article was created and then deleted: Article Logs. Considering the random insertion of subject mentions in other WP articles (search results) this all smells like self-promotion to me. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, I'm still finding my feet as an editor, didn't realise the article had been created/removed before, cheers folks Yorkshiresoul (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more information on Aquilina and I've read the criteria for notability. (1) She has been published in a newspaper and she has been written about many times on various websites. (2) She has reached #1 on the Maltese iTunes charts and limbed to #4 on the main iTunes chart before her single/EP was even released. (4) She has opened for Ryan O'Shaughnessy from Britain's Got Talent so I think this fulfils this criteria. She is a new artist but I think she is definitely notable. I've added more text and sources on the entry and I'm in the process of adding more. Also, I think the whole article should be kept because it appears on the first page of the Google search for "Lauren Aquilina."Mpwilliams (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also saw this girls EP featured in The Sun newspaper (UK) earlier this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jermainebeckford2008 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Jermainebeckford2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if any significant coverage in reliable sources is available (as opposed to trivial, self-promotional coverage or mentions in blogs of unknown quality), please produce it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aquilina has been mentioned on Maltese National TV channel TVM and was played on BBC Radio 1 (BBC Intoducing) on the 15th of October 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaweed17 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tide seems to be flowing against deletion here. If there are not currently any news references that unambiguously meet the first criterion from the criteria for notability, it seems a good bet that there soon will be. Her EP is available for pre-order on iTunes, is expected to drop in just over a week, and the song "Fools" really is quite remarkable. She will almost certainly be getting reviewed in a number of print publications soon. I think it would be wise to move on to other battles. John Callender (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured on BBC Radio 1 for her first play. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n91y5/BBC_Introducing_with_Jen_and_Ally_15_10_2012/ MikeHolbornTownsend (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC) — MikeHolbornTowsend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete "it seems a good bet that there soon will be", "expected to drop", "will almost certainly be getting reviewed". WP:CRYSTAL. ITune charts are not WP:GOODCHARTS. Notability is not inherited from acts she has opened for. Mentioned is not non trivial coverage. A play is not rotation. I found no Sun feature (WP:V, saw this last week is not good enough). She lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. She may in the future have a wikipedia article but for now it is too soon. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Duffbeerforme. I also could not find a Sun feature, nor any other coverage in secondary reliable sources that would establish notability under WP:GNG. Plainly does not meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND, and nobody has argued convincingly otherwise. Mpwilliams asserts she has been published in a newspaper, without citing any sources; those that do exist are not WP:RS. iTunes charts don't count as WP:GOODCHARTS, opening for someone on a show doesn't count as a concert tour. --Batard0 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after Richard Dedekind[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many of the items in this list are linked from Richard Dedekind anyway. Seems like listcruft. Tckma (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's quite a long list and could be expanded with brief summaries of what each is, which would make it more useful for navigation. The topics appear notable and it seems to pass list policy; it's hardly WP:LISTCRUFT since it's a list of things closely associated with Dedekind that form a natural category; the only question is whether it would be better to merge to the main article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Colapeninsula. If nothing else, the list functions as a sort of disambiguation or navigation aid. As Colapeninsula says, this can be kept separately or merged into the bio article, but either way it's a legitimate list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putting common links in a common place makes for a useful list. Why delete it just because all its links occur elsewhere? Ozob (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula Sasha (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is of notable things associated with Dedekind's name. These aren't trivialities. The links from the original article aren't quite as convenient for extracting the information. Churn and change (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if these are all mentioned in one place or another in the article about Dedekind, it's sometimes useful to have them concentrated. Even if one section of the Dedekind article were devoted only to this, it's useful to have a centralized list like the one below, which appears in a prominent Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2008. MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Essek[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and maybe WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2008, as a likely search term, where he's appropriately covered as a candidate with the election results. Dru of Id (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - As mentioned above, the article should either be deleted or redirected. Kumioko (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A redir is not necessary. WP has a good search algorithm. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly P Joy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References not citing the person on whom the article has been written Shrikanthv (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ones from The Hindu do. Despite the person's unlikely name (sounds like a character from an off day at Disney...), I feel there could be notability here from the film Ammamanassinu and the tunnels. There seems to be a distinctly self-promotional streak, though, and I wonder if User:Sammathewss (the author here) and User:Jollypjoy (author of Ammamanassinu) are connected. Peridon (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per evidence at first nomination. A 27-year-old lecturer needs a lot more than the film project to pass WP:PROF and I don't see enough for GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- the creator is involved in sockpupptery and attacking users , so really doubt on what he is upto Shrikanthv (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the apparent self-promotion, none of the sources in the article covers Joy in anything close to the depth needed to support an article or a pass of WP:GNG, and some of them don't even mention him at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin John Callanan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio lacking notability. No indication awards are major (and at least one is only one of many finalists). Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Mostly show announcements or passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable Sandisk16 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Sandisk16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - additions to the article make him seem just about notable enough. PamD 21:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i don't know how notable he is, but he's certainly done enough for an article. --Jethro B 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was weak keep. Batard() seems to sum it up as well as I could. Wily D 08:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dazey Corporation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable, defunct company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than those just in articles. Please read WP:NRVE. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP: GNG and WP: CORP as the 2 sources are unreliable. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete This seems to be a brand name that has been passed from owner to owner; the original Dazey made can openers, and then the corporate name was sold to the Seal-a-Meal people, and thence to Rival. I cannot put together a useful corporate history about this. Seal-a-Meal probably ought to have an article, but probably not the company. Mangoe (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator and some !=voters here have called for deletion in part because the company is out of business. That is not a valid delete reason, since notability is not temporary. There is significant coverage the company or brand and its products in handbooks of kitchen collectables. This company and brand started in the 19th century as the ["Dazey Churn" company circa 1907-1922 which made little butter churns which are sought by collectors of antiques. They were "the best known manufacturer of glass churns." The columns cited indicate a continued company existence from the Dazey Churn company to the ubiquitous Dazey brand of fryers, slicers, hairdryers, Seal-A-Meals, and many other small appliances, until they were bought by their rival (Rival). The handbook of kitchen collectables notes the owners of the brand in its later years, but I do not see that as a barrier to having an article. Life magazine ads from 1940 and 1959, while not providing notability, show a continued existence in that era of Dazey as a brand or company selling can openers, ice crushers, nut crackers and knife sharpeners. Different people or groups owning a company or well-known brand is not a valid delete reason. The Dazey company was in the news for [defective products in 1976, and for a different defective product in 1977. Their products were widely advertized and sold in the US in the 1980's and 1990s, such as the potato peeler featured in a gift guide in 1995:[12]. Dazey's acquisition by Rival was covered in the news in 2002. Edison (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not as convinced of the continuity of this as you are, and it seems to me that there is an element of WP:OR in piecing together the various segments of its history. That said, I'm weakening my response on this. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The most-used name of the company in sources I've found thus far appears to be Dazey Products Company. Source coverage has been found using the search criteria "Dazey Products Co." and others. Furthermore, this source currently being used in the article may be about a different financial services company. Other sources refer to the company as "The Dazey Churn and Manufacturing Company" and "Dazey Corporation" (see this link).

Alexander, Brian S. (2011). Spiffy Kitchen Collectibles. Krause Publications. pp. 166–170. ISBN 1440227918. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Certain Home Vacuum Packaging Machines, Inv. 337-TA-496. Diane Publishing. pp. 10–12. ISBN 1428956131. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Hill, Judy (May 31, 1980). "Scrubber Needs More Than it's Own Power." The Deseret News.
"Whirlpool May Give Shock". The Telegraph-Herald. October 26, 1977. Retrieved October 09, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Can Openers Found Perilous". The Milwaukee Journal. March 30, 1976. Retrieved October 09, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Cobb, Linda (September 26, 2002). "You can find this product, but under a different name". The Daily Courier. Retrieved October 09, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Several sources have been added to the article after the time of its nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The sourcing available is tenuous at best, and I wasn't able to find much more in a search of Google and the news archives. Most of this can be classified as WP:ROUTINE, and I'm not entirely convinced that we can show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources yet. But this book, combined with the weak coverage elsewhere, seems to show at least an element of notability under WP:GNG. I think it warrants a short article, although the wiser course in the long run may be a move to Seal-a-Meal as suggested above. --Batard0 (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Scottywong | gossip _ 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Lakis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I stumbled across this tonight and saw that it had an immediate problem with sourcing, also having some overly promotional content as well. I cleaned out the unusable sources and the overly promotional content, but upon searching for sources I was unable to find any that actually covered her as an actress. There are some trivial sources, but nothing really in-depth. I'm also listing the article for Ewan Bourne, also by the same editor. This one does have sources, but the coverage is so minimal that I don't see how it gives notability to the director. His sources are as follows:

[13] An article by a local paper about a film he's working on that seems to be more taken from a press release than to be an actual article.
[14] This is by the same paper and suffers most of the same issues, mostly listing people in a "taken directly from a press release" fashion.
[15] This is more of an article, but it is more about a tax incentive that Bourne praises than about him.

I just don't see where any of these sources show notability for Bourne and there's a lack of reliable in-depth sourcing for Lakis. I'd speedy both, but I want to bring it to AfD since the editor is new and hopefully if there's any sources out there that were missed, that they could be found. As far as the movie goes, I'm nominating it because it is related to Bourne and has a similar problem with sources. There is one review, but the other two links go to pages for sites that are reliable but are predominantly just re-stating a press release for the film. Since the film was released last year and received little coverage, it's unlikely that it will get anymore in the near enough future to warrant sitting on it for a while.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated above:

Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Lauren Lakis
Ewan Bourne

There are many articles on both of these people to show that both articles in topic are and have been strong members in the film industry.

The articles in question on Lauren Lakis are strong enough fact about her work as an actress.

The page on Ewan Bourne originally contained many detailed articles about his carrer as a producer. As you stated above about his directing, he directed one horror motion picture that was gaining praise and then was dropped by the studio when it had budget issues. He has been known as a strong producer in the horror genre of filmmaking as stated with his close relation and ties running in the cult horror group of classic filmmakers.

Deleting the page for Zombie Apocalypse: Redemption shows this the editor has a personal issue with the creator. This article was created a long time ago and was fine to stay on this site until now, only because of this editors personal issue. Next I'm guessing Tokyogirl79 will request a deletion for the the page of Lovely Molly. LFPRESS (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, no I don't have an agenda. Also, if you didn't notice, I was one of the main contributors to the page for Lovely Molly, sourcing it to where it would be safe from deletion. As far as notability goes, prove it with reliable sources that actually go into depth about Lakis, Bourne, or the film. I did a search and I couldn't find anything to show that any of them pass WP:GNG at all, let alone the more specific ones for WP:CREATIVE, WP:NFILM, or WP:NACTOR. None of them have sources that show that they pass these guidelines or the ones for notability in general. Also, notability is not inherited by anyone having any sort of association with a notable persona. If I can use an example, Woody Allen's wife is not considered notable enough for an article, despite being married to him, and he's considered to be one of the most known filmmakers in general out there and highly notable. I neither delete articles due to a personal bias or involvement with the actors/directors/films/etc, nor have I ever created an article about someone on behalf of that person. I'm pretty much neutral when it comes to articles and I have to admit that I resent the implication that I'm doing this out of a personal bias.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because an article has existed without being nominated for deletion to this point does not mean that it passed notability guidelines at any point in time. It just means that until I came upon it, nobody else took the time to nominate it for deletion. We don't keep articles because they've been around for long periods of time, we keep them because they pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since you've already brought up the subject of a bias or conflict of interest, I must also ask if you are involved with the subjects of this AfD in any way, shape or form. If you are, then you might want to read through WP:COI. Having a conflict of interest doesn't mean that you can't edit, just that you should be honest about your connection to the topics at hand and proceed with caution since it's easy to see notability where there isn't any or to take deletions personally.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - un-sourced (or not well sourced) articles which do not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR (specifically). Zombie Apocalypse: Redemption might meet the criteria if there were more reviews / "significant coverage" but I couldn't find any. They also seem to have been written by the "press" officer for one of the associated production companies/agencies. Never a good idea. Please see WP:COI. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched around everywhere, and wasn't able to find anything that would rise to significant coverage in reliable sources under WP:GNG. I found one interview in a local paper, but it appeared to be more of a promotional thing (her website was listed at the end) than an objective report on her. Given that the creator is a new user, we might consider userfy for possible future use if significant coverage does arise; the actress is quite young and it's possible that she may get some bigger roles and more coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with anyone userfying the content from these pages, if they'd be interested in that. I would, of course, recommend that if anyone involved with the production company takes in the content, that they go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Film or a similar WikiProject before re-adding to the mainspace in order to ensure neutrality.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -Scottywong | squeal _ 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold Bar Reporter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Edited by one of the owners of the paper as a platform for furthering her agenda attacking city officials. The paper itself, putting aside that it's a very small local rag, is not really a newspaper but an attack vehicle. Only reference is to the paper itself. The COI editor, Block, and her attacks have gotten some press coverage in Seattle, but nothing to warrant the inclusion of an article about the paper. Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination starts with a heaping helping of IDONTLIKEIT ("...small local rag...attack vehicle..."). That's interesting but irrelevant. Then it cites a deficiency in the sourcing of the piece ("...only reference is to the paper itself..."). That is also irrelevant to the question of notability — assuming that potential sourcing exists elsewhere in the form of substantial coverage in independently-published sources. Then there is mention of COI editing, which is frowned upon but not formally banned under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Finally we get to the meat of the objection, that this editor/website/newspaper have received "some press coverage in Seattle" but that it is insufficient. NOW that's the question of notability... THIS PIECE in the Seattle Times, one of two mainstream daily newspapers of the largest city of the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, would certainly seem to go a long way to establishing notabiity. Here's ABC NEWS giving substantial coverage to Block and here publication. Y'know what, I'm done already and that's page 1 of a simple Google search for the exact phrase Gold+Bar+Reporter. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, attack pages can be candidates for speedy deletion. Typically, the attack page attacks its subject, not something else, as here. But the principle is similar in that the only notability of the article is negative. Now, that, of course, doesn't mean that we can't have a wholly negative article, but this so-called newspaper's only notoriety is Anne Block and her attacks on the city of Goldbar's officials. Thus, it has a WP:BLP1E flavor to it, although, of course, it is nominally not about a BLP. Let's say you have a local newspaper in some small town whose articles are only about a weird kind of orange that is grown only in that small town. That might be odd enough to garner attention in bigger cities in the state, but that doesn't make the newspaper notable. That's an extreme analogy, but it illustrates a point. This article is going to be nothing but trouble. As Block criticizes more stuff and sues more people and creates more controversy, she and others will attempt to add that to the article. We can vigilantly keep that stuff out unless it's reported in secondary sources (at the moment, the attack stuff is not cited to secondary sources), but, at bottom, that's all the article is ever going to be about, a small-town "newspaper" started by a crusader. We had an article about Anne K. Block herself that was speedily deleted as an attack page because instead of promoting her (as this article does), it denigrated her, but, if anything, Block is more notable than her paper.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment. You are showing a complete misunderstanding on attack pages. The article is in no way an attack page. It is about a subject that, using your words, is an attack vehicle. An attack page is a page based entirely to attack a subject on wikipedia. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources out there that just need to be added to the article. RS: [16], [17], [18], Not-So-RS [19]. imo, Notability has been met. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (a) The reliable sources noted above seem to call this a blog not a newspaper (b) All the notability I'm seeing here appears to stem from the a local political scandal, so WP:1E may be a factor (c) since an editor with the same name as the site editor has eddited the article, I've tagged it for COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lomon's sources are fascinating as small town gossip, but from them it appears clear this is not a genuine newspaper and there are considerable BLP concerns about the material in the article. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gold Bar, Washington, which is clearly notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gold Bar, Washington— and while we're at it, tell the full story. I see no sign that it is independently notable; it's not on the list of newspapers maintained at the Washington State Library. However, it is very important to the ongoing saga of the possible disestablishment of the town, and there are plenty of good sources about that conflict. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A little research shows that this is more complicated. It does seem that the blog (which is how the Herald describes it) is essentially the mouthpiece of Anne Block; the problem is that she has more than one iron in the fire. Besides the fight with the city, she is also trying to get Aaron Reardon recalled. At this point I'm thinking that the notability of her blog is too low and too unfocused to support redirection and merger. That said, our coverage of these issues needs improvement. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we had attacks and edit-wars on articles about Anne Block a few weeks ago, now we are getting the other side of the feud, with an article about her paper edited by her. I think my comment at the WP:REFUND request for one of the Anne Block articles also applies here: "The strong impression given here, in the edit-wars on the deleted article, and by Anne Block being reposted by another single-purpose account within a week of the deletion of Anne K. Block, is that the citizens of Snohomish County want to use Wikipedia as an arena for their local political battle. That is absolutely not what an encyclopedia is for." JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. There's been demonstrated coverage in reliable secondary sources that are national and state-wide in scope, and this coverage is significant, not just WP:ROUTINE. I haven't seen an argument above that challenges the reliability of these sources or the significant coverage guideline. The article should be improved and has serious neutrality issues that need to be addressed, but there's no denying as of now that it meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and thus should be kept. The founder is probably not notable under WP:BLP1E, but this guideline applies to living people, not organizations. --Batard0 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Upcoming Drama Series[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is unnecessary to have such a largely unreferenced table of television programmes. Since there is scarce sourcability, methinks WP:TOOSOON could plausibly be applied. Per policy, such highly unreferenced articles pertains to future shows or such should be deleted. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about merge it with List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8 (i.e. cut and paste it straight into the mentioned page)? These type of "upcoming" pages change often and need to be updated constantly anyway. Acsian88 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, that was what I was thinking of. But the thing is, its relying on just one pathetic source, and that's a no when it comes to things about future shows or films; we need the sourcability, at least. For the time being, a delete rather than a merge is more appropriate, unless reliable, third party sources that mention this upcoming programmes are found. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded WP:FORK off the List of article, also WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. I've been dealing with this exact problem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Disney Channel (UK and Ireland) Upcoming Events, List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel in the UK & Ireland, and List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland). These type of articles should simply be lists of programming airing on networks, not act as another place to put WP:ADVERT-violating content ripped directly from press releases from fans who don't understand our guidelines. There should be no room for an article proclaiming a TV film as "Year-end blockbuster for 2012" when it hasn't even aired. Nate • (chatter) 23:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YTF Legacy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You'd think that this collection of superstars would generate some coverage, but that idea seems to be mistaken. I found nothing but one announcement of a concert. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the Hawaii State proclamation which alone is not enough, I see no other sources in sufficient depth or coverage to assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS, and does not meet the WP:GNG. Zappa O Mati 13:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: GNG, as there is a lck of a depth in coverage, plus Youtube is an unreliable source. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this collective; does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 00:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as others above, can't find evidence of notability in reliable sources -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- New sources added to bring the number of independent sources to 4. I believe it also meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria #6. The ensemble includes at least 2 notable musicians: JR Aquino (The Voice finalist), and Andrew Garcia (American Idol finalist). --Tea with toast (話) 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that notability for the band is inherited from some of its members having been non winners of TV reality or game shows? Please link to the relevant notability guidelines, and numerous, reliable, independent established sources that discuss these people in depth per WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO #6 appears to suggests that if there are two notable individual in the ensemble, then the ensemble should be notable. You can judge whether or not the ensemble members are notable yourself by clicking on the members respective Wikipedia articles. Beyond the singers noted above, I would think that Nigahiga and KevJumba are notable persons. They fit criteria #2 (and possibly #3) for WP:ENT --Tea with toast (話) 04:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6 actually says "may" not "should" - I'd say the band itself still needs some significant coverage -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the idea behind that is that there needs to be an article because there is no obvious redirect target. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of a redirect target is not a valid reason for having an article - if a subject is not sufficiently notable for an article and there is not a valid redirect, then we simply have nothing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact competing targets, is the point. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not change anything - the absence of an obvious single target is not a reason to create an article about a topic if it is not considered sufficiently notable for one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your view, yet disamb is part of the reasoning behind WP:MUSICBIO criteria #6, along with a presumption of notability. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article is not disambiguation, and WP:MUSICBIO criteria #6 says nothing about disambiguation, and there is no presumption of notability in it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'm relisting to allow time for responses to Tea with toast's "keep" arguments. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and fails WP:SIGCOV. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chester See on Itunes: Chester See on iTunes

Dominic 'D-Trix' Sandoval on MTV's America's Best Dance Crew

Victor "Victor King" Kim is a member and Dominic 'D-Trix' Sandoval is a former member of Quest Crew

--Mldnathai (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)--Mldnathai (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. As is standard practice, arguments with a strong basis in Wikipedia policy are given greater weight. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the article history. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EVO 2[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The product in question does not meet GNG. The GNG notice has been in place for months, the article consists of primary sources or press releases (6 of 9 sources cited), one joystiq article, and an article in the anniston star (local paper). If it were simply vaporware, I'd be interested in inclusion and to have the article marked as such, but the issue is there is little reason at this juncture to even have the article exist. Kai445 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - There are sources out there, but they're all like this IGN article -- all they do is announce the product, and talk about it's premise. Considering the lack of coverage beyond it's announcement, and the fact that it is continually delayed, with most follow-up info being from the company's website itself, makes me think it should be deleted, or merged/redirected to the original EVO Smart Console article for now. Sergecross73 msg me 04:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to redirect/merge if there is no consensus for deletion. -Kai445 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and the fact that it is continually delayed? Just because it's being delayed does not mean it has to be deleted. Delaying of a product does not cause anything for its respective wiki article! --Gaming&Computing (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting at is, in it's current shape, I don't believe it's currently notable, and the more it gets delayed without explanation or future dates, the more likely I feel that it won't be released, and if it's never released, then I don't see it ever getting future coverage to help it meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly has enough sources to support the info. Also has two images and a logo, a detailed infobox, and otherwise a detailed article. Should be kept. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Whether or not it has images or an infobox has no bearing on whether or not it meets the WP:GNG. The sources at the article are largely first party (doesn't count toward notability standards), not exactly reliable, or don't cover much beyond it's initial announcement. To call it "detailed" is a stretch as well, the article is largely tech specs ripped from the official website or countless delays or "absence of news" type updates observed by editors. (Empty statements like The EVO 2 was supposed to be featured at E3 2012 in June, as stated on their site, however it did not appear there.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Gaming & Computing is the article creator. -Kai445 (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I think there are plenty of reliable sources out there as this shows. The console is fairly notable; meets WP:N. It even has more sources than the "original evo console" as Sergecross73 pointed out, and that isn't showing up at an AfD... Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the only thing I really said about the original EVO was that it would be a good merge/redirect target... Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Ghit is mostly non-envizions-related. Millions of results based on mostly irrelevant results being displayed. EVO 2 is a guitar pickup, 4x4 EVO 2, HTC EVO 2... I mean, of the first Google page, only four out of the first eighteen results is actually relevant, of which the Wiki entry is one. -Kai445 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:Here I am just scrolling trough VG article and I found this,well anyway It proves to be stable,12 sources an a website is good,I have seen articles with less, that haven't been deleted or merged,although those might seem like the right choice right now,I have no intentions of a search for another source as Kai states above is almost the same I found with Yahoo unless "http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/25/evo-2-console-promises-to-bring-android-gaming-to-your-tv-this-f/" counts.74.178.177.115 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a useable source, but it's just like the one's I brought up before, where all it really is, is a short article outlining it's premise, sourced by a press release. Because every source is like this, is why I think a merge could be a good choice; there's so little of substance to be said about this topic. The rest of your comment I can't really respond to, as I can't really understand what you're getting at with all those typos and run-on thoughts, but I feel like it may fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an invalid reasoning for keeping at article... Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it could fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.74.178.177.115 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you acknowledging you gave a mostly invalid reason for keeping the article? Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I was agreeing,Other than finding more source on the last page of searching,like I said,Yeah it could fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.74.178.177.115 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, when you say that your own argument falls under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that's basically discrediting your own argument. If you're trying to argue a point, that's not an argument you want to make... Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'M NOT TRYING TO START ANYTHING,I'm agreeing to disagreeing,but yeah I guess I'm discrediting my own argument,but It seems to be a nice article and I wouldn't care if it were deleted or merged :/.74.178.177.115 (talk)

I didn't think you were trying to "start anything", I was just confirming that you knew what you were saying. (It's not very often someone makes an invalid argument, and then admits that they're self-aware in making an invalid argument, without arguing the point further.) Thank you for clarifying, now the closing admin can see that your !vote is more of a "neutral" than anything. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample refrences and an article which is more than a stub only. Whoever is in gaming will find this article useful. CamillePontalec (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Four of twelve references are from the product homepage. Two are press releases from press release sites (prlog/eworldwire). The gizmag and digitaltrends references are essentially blog entries that restate the press release from 2011. The only reliable sources are perhaps from The Anniston Star and Joystiq, but the articles are over a year and a half old, and aside from being the same, generic types of press release material, do not do anything to further the notability of the wikipedia article. -Kai445 (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: The account CamillePontalec appears to be a single purpose account, having never made any contributions before this. -Kai445 (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a valid argument either. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Bryant[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable athlete. Does not appear to have played in this team and the only reference doesn't actually contain any information about him. Lots of stats sites seem to have his passport-style photo but no in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly fails WP:ATHLETE. Also, the article's sole advocate did a beautiful job half an hour ago of vandalizing the AfD tag. Sheesh. Qworty (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any third party articles on the subject that would make him clear the notability threshhold through WP:GNG or any other measure. If it were to surface or be presented, I'd change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 20:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is a former college athlete who is not entitled to a presumption of notability under WP:NCOLLATH, having never received a major national college football award, nor under WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played a down in a regular season professional football game. Subject's notability, therefore, must be determined under the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG, for which there is nothing approaching the level of substantial coverage required in independent, reliable sources. Heck, the subject is not even a member of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers practice squad anymore, and the one linked source in the article now a dead link. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found this and this, but to me neither of these are enough to qualify under WP:GNG. There's a chance that he'll play in an NFL game someday which would immediately deem him notable per WP:NGRIDIRON, but for now I vote delete. Go Phightins! 01:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Phightins, neither of those linked sources is valid for establishing notability. The first is a fan blog by someone other than a professional journalist, the second is the very definition of routine "transactional" coverage. Feel free to upgrade your delete vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I should feel that freedom? :) I find practice squad players to be a gray area that I constantly struggle with. Here is another article I found. Again, I feel there's a notability issue, but when we set the threshold so low, and the guy still can't meet it, he just can't pass it for me. Nevertheless, due to that article and the fact that he is on the Colts' practice squad according to this page. I agree that per the letter of the law, he shouldn't be included. I tend to use "strong", "weak", etc. to convey my thoughts while making my vote. I'll consider upgrading to a normal delete, but as for now I'm going to hold with a weak prefix. Go Phightins! 02:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per David E DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Vancampfort[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A stub which may not meet notability standards. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until an argument for deletion is presented -- why is a stub which may not meet notability standards being brought here? The evidence for notability is presented in the article, with the presidency of an international association of Physicians and a huge list of first authored publications. That might not be enough for GNG or WP:PROF, but some research to counteract the notability presented in the article needs to be done before going to AfD. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not appear to pass WP:PROF at this time, although he is young and could qualify in the future (WP:TOOSOON?). His citation rate at Google Scholar is not high (though that could change since all his articles are recent). The presidency of a subgroup of an international organization does not meet WP:PROF either. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's one paper in Google scholar by him with over 100 citations, but he's not first author, and the other pubs have much lower cite counts. So I'm not convinced of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Uzi and Ari. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Glassett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable enough for an article. Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there is a long and detailed article about Andrew Glassett in the Salt Lak City Weekly. However, that and the short review of I'm Sad Your Living probably aren't enough to seal his notability. The long Slug Magazine article by Glassett doesn't count, for obvious reasons. Though he's been a member of many bands, only Uzi and Ari seems to be notable, so this doesn't help Glassett pass WP:NMUSIC. My one major reservation is his alternative name, Nolens Volens, which is also a Latin phrase so makes it difficult to find anything on him online under that name. If someone can find one extra piece of convincing coverage, I'll change my 'vote' to keep. Sionk (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uzi and Ari - I found an interview here and minor mentions here (event listing) and here with the name "Nolens Volens". I also searched with "Andrew Glassett" and both "Andrew Glassett Nolens Volens" at the same time but found nothing significant. Considering that two of the article's current references are non-English (Italian and German), it is possible that additional sources may not be English so I briefly searched with Google News Germany but found nothing. It appears that he is not independently notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in Google Books and news. Found some facebook and twitter pages only on Google. Does not meet any criteria for WP:MUSICBIO -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brave New Words: The Manitoba Writing and Publishing Awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. a mere 4 gnews hits [20]. even a search of cbc.ca does not reveal much. [21]. the limited coverage is limited to one line mentions. need a lot more to meet notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent refs with in-depth non-trivial coverage. Three articles by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (found via Google), two Winnipeg Free Press articles (via Gale (commercial database)), and 2 Canadian Children's Book News articles (via Gale). Green Cardamom (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note the following has been amended [22]. more appropriate to use strike through. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Graves (American football)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and has no significant coverage which mean the player also fails WP:GNG – Michael (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some additional content and references which I think allow it to qualify as a stub. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a matter of seconds, I found some significant coverage through Google News: search +"John Graves" +football +"virginia tech" pulls over 180 articles from various nationwide newspapers. While I agree that college football ~~offensive~~ linemen normally do not pass WP:GNG, this is an obvious exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but note that he's a defensive lineman. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops... --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you're right, there was enough coverage for me to expand the one-liner article that existed at the time of nomination to the stub that exists now. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe didn't pass before. Maybe WP:BEFORE should have been applied. Seems to pass now. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AutomaticStrikeout 01:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found more coverage in the Washington Post and the Roanoke Times. Churn and change (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be more than enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish John Graves' notability. That having been said, I must caution my fellow editors with regard to some of the sources offered: (1) trivial mentions don't count—just because the subject's name is briefly mentioned in a major publication is meaningless; (2) routine game and transactions coverage doesn't count for notability purposes; (3) recruiting websites don't count for much; (4) university and sports program websites and school newspapers are not considered independent sources, and don't count for purposes of establishing notability; and (5) amateur sports blogs are not considered reliable sources, and therefore don't count, either. In the absence of major national honors and/or stand-alone independent source articles about the subject, critical review of the sources offered to establish notability should be undertaken. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

321 North Clark[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Building is tall but only 83rd tallest in Chicago and apparently not of any great note. Its only redeeming factor maybe its notable architects, SOM. I can't find anything in the way of news or book coverage online, so subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know the notability guidelines for WP:SKY, but every other building over 500 ft high in Chicago seems to have an article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, isn't it? The fact other non-notable buildings have articles doesn't mean this one should escape scrutiny. If there are 82 other buildings nearby that are taller, the height is not of great note either. Sionk (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage about this building to indicate it is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any sources focusing with history about the building but rather mentions about tenants. One of the most useful sources I have found is this, which provides brief details about the history. A small possibility of notability would be that Google News archives provided several results suggesting that Quaker Oats is headquartered there. However, I myself believe this would be insufficient. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, this building was originally the headquarters of Quaker Oats and I was able to dig up a bit more information searching for the original name "Quaker Tower," e.g. [23] and [24]. The building was named "Development of the Year" and later one of the "most important buildings of the '80s" by the Chicago Sun-Times, which credited it with helping to revitalize the surrounding area. There are also lots of other real-estate section type articles about the various times the building has changed hands. This isn't an outstanding level of coverage, but I think it's enough to meet GNG, and certainly enough to verify the basic history of the building. Camerafiend (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears that the name "Quaker Tower" was used from the 1980s to 2001/2002 as shown by Google News results. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the article (and people who can't access the online version) it may be helpful to add this/these to the stub. Sionk (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fleshed out the stub a bit and added some sources; hopefully it looks a little better now. Camerafiend (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It initially seemed non-notable, and almost all of the sources that turn up in a search are clearly WP:ROUTINE coverage of transactions, people moving in and out and so forth. These must be ignored for the purposes of this discussion. But I was able to find this Chicago Tribune article, which dwells on the building itself in a significant way. It's also discussed in this book and here, although briefly. Combined with the Tribune naming it one of the most important buildings of the '80s, as cited above, I think this passes WP:GNG. I suspect that there are other reliable sources covering the building, but that they may not exist online because much of the coverage appeared in the 1980s. --Batard0 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 321 North Clark was the headquarters for The Quaker Oats Company. The Quaker Tower in Chicago sold for $134 million, or $159/sf, in June 2001 which is when Quaker Oats moved out. By August 2003, its value was $225 million. The article presently has sourcing and add what is noted above and that results in the topic meeting WP:GNG. Being a big building located in crooked Chicago, there's probably a lot of write ups on its contruction and cost overruns, city difficulties, etc. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nounique names 04:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delirium (Cooper novel)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear notable per WP:GNG Nounique names 04:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found some sources that do discuss the novel, but I'm wondering if this wouldn't be better served at a larger entry that encompasses all of the books in the series. There's just enough to where this might squeak by WP:NBOOK but it's dubious as to whether or not the other books in the series would pass as well. There's some coverage, but because a lot of these works were written either pre or early Internet it might just be better to create one big entry and have the titles redirect there. I'll see what I can find for the other books, but so far that's how I'm leaning. Separate articles aren't always better, in my opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we keep it as standalone or merge I don't care. The purpose of AfD is to delete content. There is enough sourcing to justify keeping it, somewhere. This AfD should not close as a Delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the first novel serialized on the web, and that is historically important. Lots of sources for this. For example: http://www.horizonzero.ca/flashsite/issue1/english/issue1/delirium/delirium.swf. I'd also suggest quoting Craig Seligman's review in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/15/reviews/980315.15seligma.html) in the article. CandaceWare (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC) CandaceWare[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed in the NYTimes, which creates a presumption of more widespread coverage (some examples of which are cited in the article). Textbook case of meeting the GNG, this AFD is senseless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is significantly improved from when I nominated it. In its current form, I have no issue with a keep. I will close shortly. --Nounique names 04:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Carl Hamilton novels. No need for a "merge" close, as the material has already been merged. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coq Rouge (novel)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Carl Hamilton novels. The first of 13 very popular novels in Sweden and other Germanic languages featuring the character Carl Hamilton. The novels include:

Coq Rouge (1986)
The Democratic Terrorist (1987)
I nationens intresse (1988)
Enemy's Enemy (1989)
Den hedervärde mördaren (1990)
Vendetta (1991)
Ingen mans land (1992)
Den enda segern (1993)
I hennes majestäts tjänst (1994)
En medborgare höjd över varje misstanke (1995)
Hamlon (1996)
Madame Terror (2006)
Men inte om det gäller din dotter (2008)

According to Culture and Customs of Sweden (Byron J. Nordstrom, 2010, pg. 104) these books "..place him besides John le Carre and Len Deighton" (famous British spy novelists). The New Encyclopædia Britannica: Micropædia called it a "best-selling series". In Europe, Issue 343 the character Carl Hamilton is called "Sweden's James Bond" and the novel Coq Rouge is "Jan Guillou's.. first significant work of fiction".

Given all this, there is no doubt this book received at least two significant reviews when it was published in 1986, likely dozens, as popular books usually do. Since it was in Sweden nearly 30 years ago, it's going to be very difficult to dig these up online. One would probably need to travel to Sweden, enter a library, and look through microfiche. Or possibly if some major newspapers had archives online. I did look through commercial databases and found the book mentioned in 5 Swedish/Dutch/German sources (all newspapers) in the past 3 years (older records not available). I don't speak the languages and they are images so can't be run through Google translate. Cites for these:

NRC Handelsblad, 13 Jul 2012. Pages 40 - 41
Sydsvenskan, 30 Oct 2011. p.88
Der Standard, 21 Mar 2011. p.25
Dagens Nyheter Weekend, 4 Jul 2010. p.66
Sydsvenskan, 20 Jun 2010. p.35

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be better to write an article for the overall series. Sometimes books can become so overwhelmingly notable that they inherit notability suitable enough to have their own article, but those instances are fairly rare and in these instances the individual volumes usually have a ton of individual sources as is in the case of the Harry Potter series. Of course as you've noted, the biggest issue here is time, as many of the reviews and articles for the individual books were done pre-Internet and in foreign languages, which makes them less likely to be found on the net.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a series article Carl Hamilton (fictional character). It would be fine idea to rename that article to Carl Hamilton novels or something and merge in the four individual book articles which are mostly lacking sources and stubby plot summaries. If someone then wanted to expand a book it could be split off from the main article when the length and sourcing justifies a standalone article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and merged all the Carl Hamilton content into a single article Carl Hamilton novels. If there is objection we can take it up on the talk pages, or here. I left Coq Rouge as-is since it is currently under an AfD, but the content is now in the series article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carl Hamilton novels, per GC. There's enough there to show notability for the series and as sources can be found, we can work on giving the individual books their own articles once there are enough.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since this has already been merged to the article on the series I would suggest that it can be redirected and the discussion closed. I don't see any reason to continue this. --Michig (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (by which I mean, unmerge this and each of them. There is enough information in the Swedish articles to be translated into corresponding English ones. This particular book meets one of the basic criteria, having been made into a film. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at se [25]. The problem is films have to be notable to make the book notable. Not to say it couldn't be done, but there is no article here (for the film Code Name Coq Rouge) and no sourcing in the Swedish film article [26] (and no sources in the Swedish novel article). If there was an article for Code Name Coq Rouge with sourcing to est. notability, that would change my vote in the AfD. Same for the other novels that have films. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: merging per GC works for me. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus quickly developing around merge. Close and merge. --Batard0 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Recreation Centre[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely unreferenced article. Google news search shows no hits outside of Metro Vancouver. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CLUB. Even the few Vancouver hits don't show any real notability. No claim made to any architectural merit Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a gym with a pool, with no indication of notability. The hits in Google are all promotional (Foursquare, Facebook, TripAdvisor, Tourism Surrey) --John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was inclined to AfD this when I added to its talk page. Not notable, AFAICT. PK T(alk) 15:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both Google US and Google Canada News & Books provided nothing about the history of the recreation centre or other significant details. Of course, searching with Google News provided event listings and other minor mentions. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Only one independent source by the city - that refers to it as the former "Newton Wave Pool".Moxy (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coolture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not enough reliable source information for this corporation/company ~~or its product vest~~ to meet WP:GNG. There's a sentence that might be about the company's vest product in [27]. There's a July 20, 2012 sentence mentioning that Dr. Thomas Stewart is president and CEO of Coolture of Buffalo.[28]. There also is a decent, but 22 day old article.[29] As for the article, the first reference in the Wikipedia article, "Coolture: Fighting Heat Intolerance With Fashion - UB NewsCenter". Buffalo.edu. 2012-08-17. Retrieved 2012-09-26., is a press release.[30] The second reference in the Wikipedia article, "What's the Need for a Vet School in Buffalo? | WKBW News 7: News, Sports, Weather | Buffalo, NY | Top Stories". Wkbw.com. 2012-09-07. Retrieved 2012-09-26., has only two sentence about how sales are heating up for Buffalo company Coolture. There is not enough WP:GNG source material for there to be a stand alone article on the company topic. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added in additional references that prove this meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 13:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the sourcing for this article consists of nothing but a bunch of trivial name-drops and I can't find anything better. Reyk _YO! 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree that WP:GNG isn't met, namely as to substantial coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH isn't met either. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not significant coverage? [31] The news article also has a video of the television news coverage. Ample coverage is listed at [32]. [33] isn't as long but is entirely about this company. [34] is hidden behind a paywall but clearly covers it. Dream Focus 11:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[35] is a promotional piece by the University of Buffalo because of their involvement. [36] is local news coverage. [37] doesn't look like a reliable source, it looks self published. [38] is local news coverage (see where it is marked local). These sources don't contribute strongly towards GNG as demonstrated by the stub. There isn't even much coverage of material given by these sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local or not, that [39] counts as coverage. Coverage doesn't have to be nation wide. And bizjournals counts as reliable source also, they having proper editorial oversight and a professional staff and meeting all other requirements. That's why 8,218 Wikipedia articles reference them. [40] Dream Focus 19:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been improved and sources added since nomination. [41] Dream Focus 19:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the AfD process refuses to fit a square peg in a round hole. In reply to your request on my talk page,[42] arguing that Coolture vest topic meets WP:GNG is not a convincing argument to sway an AfD closer that the Coolture company topic meet WP:GNG. The current Wikipedia article[43] mostly is about Mr. Van DiBernardo as a topic but is supposed to be about the Coolture company, making it a coatrack of a topic for which we are currently trying to decide whether meets WP:GNG based on reliable sources writing about the Coolture product. That's probably not the best AfD strategy. You may want to first gather all the reliable source information available, look at it in the collective, decide whether to write a biography article, a company article, or a product article, and then pursue that since WP:GNG is topic specific based on what is the primary topic brought out from the reliable sources. For example, my decision to write Safetray as a product article instead of a company article or a biography article appears to have been successful (so far).[44] I found that topic while working the WP:COIN, but tried to fly too close to the sun when I listed the article at DYK to appear on the main page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources provided prove the Coolture company and cooling vest are notable enough to pass WP:GNG and thus have an article dedicated to them? That's is what AFD exist to determine, not the current state of the article. I believe listing how a company was founded, and why, is important. Dream Focus 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I limited the AfD request to focus on the topic of the article, which is the company. Otherwise, we could end up approving a product article by receive a company article. There is no coolture vest or coolture (vest) article so it's too early to make any decisions on that. Sorry for any confusions. That also means you can post a coolture vest/coolture (vest) article since this AfD does not address that topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to make an article for the product, and the person who created the company, when all the information goes well together on one page. Dream Focus 18:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 09:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete No significant coverage of the company, as Uzma pointed out. I would say the product isn't notable either, but I'll save it for the other AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus favors deleting or merging as far as I can see. Basically it's a no consensus situation, but unlike most such situations there clearly is a consensus that there should not be a stand-alone article. If anyone is interested in actually doing the merge let me know and I will restore it so the relevant material can be merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest buildings and structures in Mississauga[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. Inclusion criteria appears to be arbitrary. It claims to be the oldest buildings in Mississauga, but some of the buildings listed are more than 100 years younger than the oldest buildings on the list. None of the buildings on the list have articles, suggesting that they're not notable. Without notable members, how can the list be notable? Pburka (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Pburka (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed all post-1912 listings. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that since none of the buildings themselves are notable enough to have articles, having a list of them isn't going to be notable. Perhaps, if someone were so inclined, an article could be made for History of Mississauga, which could include a section on historical buildings. The section on history in the main Mississauga article is fairly long right now, so there is a good start there. —Zujine|talk 05:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also have to agree that since most or all of the buildings in the list aren't notable in their own right, there's little value in Wikipedia maintaining a list of them. Plus, genuinely curious, I looked at the edit history to see who had first created this -- shoulda known it was going to be an editor whose name still gives me the shivers, because his commitment to filling Wikipedia with content that ranged from trivial at best to incomprehensible nonsense at worst was so frustratingly unbreakable for so many years. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge There is an obvious solution, so obvious it should have occurred to the author in the first place--merge into the article for Mississauga Not really appropriate for a separate article ; it would be appropriate content there. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Without the addition of reliable sources to demonstrate notability this content isn't appropriate in any Wikipedia article. Pburka (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that the content of an article does not have to show notability -- see WP:N. notability is a concept relating to whether there can be a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge per DGG. I do not see how a selective merge back into the main article of the oldest or some of the larger and older buildings would do any harm to the Project. Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is faulty: the criteria is very specific and individual entries are not required to have articles or need to be notable. But article does need to have a larger discussion of the topic in general, along with references. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selective merge into Mississauga. This fails WP:LISTN because the buildings and structures of Mississauga are not discussed in reliable secondary sources as a group, as far as I can tell. A search doesn't turn up any such thing, although it's possible there are books somewhere (not on Google Books) that do treat these as a group. For now, until we can see that it's verifiable as a group, it should not be a standalone list. Note also that the notability of individual members of the list is irrelevant to LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Hence because we haven't turned up anything that would establish this as a notable group of things, it falls short of the relevant notability guideline. Delete or merge into Mississauga if possible, but I suggest doing so selectively because a wholesale merger would clearly give this undue weight in that article. --Batard0 (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There now appear to be sufficient satisfactory references DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Long Si Temple[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from the Straits Times RS, there was online RS coverage found. The Straits Times referenced in the article seems to talking only displacement of the temple. Wikipedia is not news. Could not trace any RS only about Jin Long Si Temple as a notable building/temple/organization. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on the Singapore Heritage Yahoo! Group website asking if anyone is aware of reliable third-party sources about the temple. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of my request for information, I've been informed that a book has been written about the temple: Kevin Tan (2007), The Temple and the Tree: Singapore's Jin Long Si, Singapore: Jin Long Si Temple, ISBN 9789810575168. There is a copy of it at the National Library of Singapore but it is only available for reference viewing (i.e., it can't be borrowed out of the library). I have not had a chance to view it at the Library yet. In any case, the existence of the book may indicate that the temple is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General, which is clearly notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the book mentioned by Jacklee and suspicion that the nominator did not attempt to find reliable Chinese-language sources. Hint: search Newspapers.SG for "金龙寺". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am adding some references below^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. The article may have to be edited but the subject does meet WP:NOTE based on this alone. -Wikishagnik (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ MobileReference (1 January 2007). Travel Singapore for Smartphones and Mobile Devices - Illustrated Travel Guide, Phrasebook, and Maps. MobileReference. p. 309. ISBN 978-1-60501-015-1. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
^ Ina-Maria Greverus; Ute Ritschel (8 May 2009). Aesthetics and Anthropology: Performing Life, Performed Lives. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 13. ISBN 978-3-643-10002-3. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
^ Kevin Tan; Patrick Yew Weng Leong (2007). The Temple and the Tree: Singapore's Jin Long Si. Jin Long Si Temple. p. 9. ISBN 978-981-05-7516-8. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
^ Leon Comber; Singapore Heritage Society (30 April 2009). Through the bamboo window: Chinese life & culture in 1950s, Singapore & Malaya. Talisman. p. 189. ISBN 978-981-08-1466-3. Retrieved 13 October 2012.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to To the Moon (video game). MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freebird Games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's the game studio that worked on To the Moon (video game). While there's no doubt that this game is notable, notability isn't inherited and looking at the article for Freebird Games, there do not appear to be any reliable sources that actually feature coverage on the company itself or its other games besides To The Moon. Of the three sources present, two are of coverage of To The Moon (and are already referenced in that article) and the other is a primary source. While I personally believe that this company is notable because of their efforts on To The Moon, I believe that they probably shouldn't have an article of their own at this time as they don't seem to have any indicators of notability outside of this one game (I could not find any sources on the other games mentioned in the article, either). RPGMakerMan (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per named refs plus decent coverage on game, company, and founder [| Here] Celtechm (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs greater significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point of the company's history, it seems that To The Moon is their only well known game and this is evident by the Google News and Google News archives results. The only link I have found that isn't relevant to To The Moon is this collaboration with EA Games along with several other video game companies. Fortunately, I have found results for the company's first game (The Mirror Lied) with this news article briefly mentioning The Mirror Lied but focuses more with To The Moon, and another brief mention of The Mirror Lied here. When I searched the second game "Do You Remember My Lullaby?" as "Do You Remember My Lullaby? Freebird Games" with Google News, few results were provided so they probably also received insufficient coverage for that game. Google Books also provided zero results for The Mirror Lied, Freebird Games and Do You Remember My Lullaby?. I'm pleased that the company has received significant coverage but it is not sufficient and independent to To The Moon at this time. Hopefully, this will allow the company to receive better coverage for the future. Honestly, it's not surprising that Freebird Games received little coverage for the first two games, considering that this has happened to several now well-known companies. Additionally, it is possible that the company was not serious at the beginning. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forget to mention in my nomination for the article but I'm not opposed to possibly merging the article with the To the Moon article, if that is deemed suitably. RPGMakerMan (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered it as I was typing my vote and that would be a better option rather than deleting. However, I believe a redirect would be better. What appropriate content would we merge to the video game's article? SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to To the Moon (video game). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Corn cheese (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick, Tick, Tick... (Castle)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In 83 episodes, this is the only episode of "Castle" that has its own Wikipedia page. It is the first half of a two-part episode, and the second part does not have its own page. This two-part episode is not very notable; it does not affect any of the ongoing storylines or mythology of the series. The only case for notability is that it is the first two-part episode the series has aired, but this is not a new concept in television — series air two- or even three-part episodes all the time, and have done for years. It is also a very obscure page; this log shows that the only links are on the episode list page and four user pages.

I cannot find any prior discussion among regular editors of the "Castle" pages that suggest "Tick, Tick, Tick ..." needs its own page, and if such a discussion were started, then I am reasonably certain that consensus would either disagree with the idea of dedicated pages for episodes, or only agree on dedicated pages for important episodes, and "Tick, Tick, Tick ..." does not fit that description. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps the plot section should be trimmed, but in general TV episode pages are fine, and this one does have sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It passes notability on sourcing grounds, and probably by inheritance (these types of spin-off articles are needed due to article-length limits). It's true it is the only episode article for the series, but it was created this year. Maybe it will set a precedent and others will pick it up over the next couple years to create more episode articles. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the references, only the Entertainment Weekly story contains substantial discussion of this episode. I think it's questionable whether the number/depth of sources meets notability guidelines. So the main reason to keep it is as a spin-out from List of Castle episodes? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I helped create this article because the episode it discusses is notable for being the highest rated Castle show and the highest in the time-slot in ten years at the time. While I expected Tsybes to do more with it, I think there is enough added there to keep it. More cites could be added though. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Soukhee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are cited, but cannot be verified to indicate notability per WP:BIO. Zujua (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my hunch is that this is a hoax, as may be indicated by the probably fake Vogue magazine covers seen here, and here. Zujua (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, my news searches for "Akash Soukhee" only show the YouTube video. Additionally, the IMDb biography differs from the content here, examples are the "Reno, Nevada" birth place (IMDb) and "Mauritius" (Wikipedia) and the "Akash" name (Wikipedia) and "Brian Patrick" (IMDb). It seems the only support is the YouTube video and a search shows additional YouTube videos (all of the videos appear to be generated by the subject). As a result of the author's username containing "Akash", I believe this is an autobiography thus I have sent a warning and offered advice to the author. Absolute trash and possibly fantasies, SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was brought to my attention by another editor that the creator of this article, Akashmunsaram, had also made a duplicate page called Brian Kehoe. It turns out that Akashmunsaram actually just changed Kehoe's page to be a page about Soukhee with these edits. In light of this, I'd say that this is clearly a hoax, and recommend a speedy delete. Zujua (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Rich[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mess of an article on personal family history. Notability not established. Prod in May 2012 contested by author Renata (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? The article is a a mess, and it's hard to check the references because they are off line. But it looks like there are 2-3 wp:notability-suitable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a complete overhaul (which I may get to), but the guy has been the subject of Miami Herald[45][46], Miami News[47] and Miami New Times[48] articles and was inducted into the International Cuemakers Hall of Fame. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miami News and International Cuemakers Hall of Fame sources provided by User:Clarityfiend above. The page does need cleanup, but not deletion. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meograph[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real coverage of the article's subject except some mentions near release. Ducknish (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 23. Snotbot t • c » 20:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe references are product reviews at best, and appear likely to be material from the PR department reprinted. Article makes a claim that it "serves" 4 types of users, but the references cited don't support that, and are the only cites to those 4 references. Created by a SPA. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. No mentions in news, few on web, most are blogs. --John Nagle (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleavage (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cleavage (Hentai)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this article for deletion a few months ago for deletion (when it was still at Cleavage (Hentai)), but no consensus was reached. Hopefully, we can have a proper discussion this time. Yes there's a Mania.com review in the article, as well as mention by Anime News Network that it has been licensed. Despite this, I'm not sure if this will be enough to establish notability. If this discussion doesn't reach any consensus like last time, we might have to request a soft delete unless more sources are found, which in that case I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the past discussion had? Also, why was it redirected? The article is about the game as well as the cartoons. It should've been left at Cleavage (hentai). Dream Focus 07:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above. There's a link to this article's previous AfD discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to Cleavage (H-game) shortly after the first AfD because it is common practice to disambiguate articles like this one based on its original release (ie. Bleach (manga), in this case the video game. However, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) states that the correct disambiguation for video game articles is (video game), so I moved it per that guideline. (Hentai) is, as of yet, not an accepted method to disambiguate between articles. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any other reliable third-party sources beyond than Mania.com review for either the video game[49] or the anime OVA[50] for it to pass WP:NOTE. But given the name of the game, positive hits are hard to come by. While there is another review linked in the external links section, that appears to be a relatively new website with only a couple dozen reviews, basic Joomla template, and no indications that the website meets the requirements of WP:SPS. What I wonder is how did someone find that link because I cannot find it listed in the list of reviews.[51] —Farix (t | c) 13:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero of the 6 sources appear wp:notability-suitable. Article text looks like self-written descriptive and promotional material. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sources were provided to stablish notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California Chaparral Institute[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, orphaned Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ and redirect to Richard Halsey (ecologist) (after creating that article) for two reasons:

Halsey is often quoted as an expert (in connection with the CCI) on issues of California ecology and fire prevention. He's also written some papers and founded the CCI. I think a case could be made for his notability per #1 of WP:CREATIVE.
The sources I dredged up for the CCI mainly involve lawsuits and advocacy, and none of them focus on the CCI directly. Overall I'm not sure if the indep. coverage is enough to establish notability and support an article focused solely on the CCI. I think it would do well as its own section in a larger article, though.

I'm on the fence about deletion and I thought this might be a good solution. Thoughts? Braincricket (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is a ton of coverage about this group, although when nominated it was a stub with no independent references. I expanded the article and added ~~nine~~ ten references, and I could have added more. Five of the references were ones that Braincricket found and put into the article in a "Further reading" section; I converted them to inline citations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the article is kept, I would suggest a redirect page from Richard Halsey (ecologist). I think an article about the institute is more appropriate than an article about him, because most references to him are quoting him as the head of this organization, and there does not appear to be enough biographical information about him out there to fill out an article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after tremendous improvement by MelanieN. On second thought, I agree with her that there isn't enough 3rd party biographical information to fill out an article about Halsey. Braincricket (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given sources establish wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN's improvements and rationale. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service lifecycle management[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dreadful article not suitable for this encyclopedia - eg the lead sentence "Service lifecycle management (SLM) is defined by industry analyst firm AMR Research and described as a holistic approach which helps service organizations better understand the revenue potential by looking at service opportunities proactively as a lifecycle rather than a single event or series of discrete events, combining all service-based operations into a single, albeit complex, set of workflows and connected business processes. "jargonese", - only sources are pay to read articles from "Aberdeen Group" - no evidence this is a reliable source - could be promotional spam. Article is not currently an encyclopedic topic. If this subject could a useful article it would need nuking and starting over. Not suggesting this is not a notable topic, just a dreadful article. Will withdraw if a better article can be made.

more complicated by the fact that many sources on the topic appear to be written in complete gibberish eg [52] Hopefully someone will be able to exercise some common sense and editorial oversight on this. Oranjblud (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly stubbing to a more solid foundation could be an alternative to deletion?Oranjblud (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Of the three "references" given, two are links to the maker's web site, and the third is a bare link that goes nowhere, with a note indicating a non-existent web site. Article content sounds like what comes out of one of those random corporate gibberesh generators. North8000 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a buzzphrase used by several companies, including IBM [53] and Parametric Technology Corporation [54], but with different meanings. Google Trends shows this phrase first appearing in 2009, and showing up more in 2012. WP:NEO seems to apply. It seems to appear only in press releases and marketing material. If the phrase catches on, it might be worth an article, but we're not there yet. The current Wikipedia content is incomprehensible, and the sources I'm finding aren't much better. --John Nagle (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be worth a redirect to Product Lifecycle Management from which frankly there doesn't seem to be more than a weak sales-y distinction. Dreadful commercial prose failing to mask lack of substance let alone notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's sad that modern industry is blighted with nonsense such as this. It apparently allows organizations to "strategically leverage their service operations", which smells distinctly of manure. It appears to simply be about reviewing a 'service' on an ongoing basis in order to improve it, which any good business will have been doing centuries before anyone came up with this. No doubt a lot of consultants will make a lot of money out of it. Unfortunately, there is a SLM element within (the once worthwhile but increasingly bloated) ITIL and there are books discussing it (e.g. this, this and this, though some others use the term with a different meaning relating to Web services), so it may be something we should really keep and improve. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Happy to delete for now though on the basis that it would require a complete rewrite. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Leitão[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that Leitão meets the notability criteria. A delete/redirect to Canadian Idol (season 3) would seem appropriate, as the only notable event in his 'career' appears to be appearing on that show. I can't find any coverage at independent reliable sources since the last AfD, and would argue that he didn't meet the criteria for a stand-alone article at that time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – (Sidenote: This is a female singer, not a male singer) I've reworked the article to clarify the notability, and have added seven more reliable sources. The Vancouver Sun article, for example, allowed me to add details about this singer's early life. Beyond her appearance on Idol, she received coverage in multiple sources for being part of the band Braided (and I improved the sourcing on that article also) and for singing a duet with figure skater Elvis Stojko as he was attempting to establish a career in music. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given sources establish wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per new sources.Moxy (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Min Reyes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual known for a high number of tweets. The references are essentially the same article republished in different venues. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with the prod, removed by me, the nominator seems to misunderstand the state of this article. The references are not the same article republished in different venues: the first ref is a bylined op-ed piece by Reyes in the Georgia Straight; references 2, 3 and 4 are a story about Reyes originally published in Canada's largest circulation newspaper the Toronto Star, written by Antonia Zerbisias and then reproduced on the Star's web portal under its "Moneyville" banner; ref 4 is her inclusion in a photo slideshow on "Faces of Canada's Occupy protests" in the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest national newspaper. So, one could argue that this combination of her own published work, a feature story on her in the Star and her inclusion in the G&M's photo essay does not constitute enough coverage, but to say that they are all the same thing is to be a stranger to the truth. I for one believe the refs do establish notability, if just barely. Moreover, I see that she has been the subject of independent coverage by the Metro International papers in Canada (see here) as well as a more fleeting mention in Canada's other national newspaper, the National Post, here. She does appear to be a notable Canadian social media activist and political organizer with the Occupy Vancouver movement. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Neutral There is one wp:notability-suitable reference, copies of it in three places and is listed as three references. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i've added the Metro News cite and formatted the refs. And I still hold that her inclusion in the Globe and Mail's photo essay on Canada's Occupy leaders is not to be disregarded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just noting that there are three articles which (after my admittedly quick review) appear to be copies of each other. And this one is the only one with even medium-depth coverage. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the recently added Metro News story in which she is the sole interviewee and subject of the headline is at least "medium-depth coverage," but we shall see what the consensus is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to neutral. IMHO this one is right on the fence. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak weak keep. In addition to the Star, she also gets a fair amount of attention in this Globe and Mail article. That plus the other odds and sods of media notice barely push her over the notability bar for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that one but is really using her as an example participant putting what she said in the article rather than being coverage of her. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established by this TorStar piece--KenWalker | Talk 23:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JR Aquino[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted A7 three times already. Although this incarnation is somewhat more informative, I've looked for sources but can't find anything that is reliable enough in number, scope, and depth to assert notability per WP:BAND. Time to get community consensus, and if it's delete, salt it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Individual now a finalist in The Voice. Earlier a contestant in American Idol. Besides his online career for many years and clear popularity, he is main member of the collective YTF Legacy. Also provided extra independent source about his performance in The Voice werldwayd (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YTF Legacy has its own problems. I would hesitate before making that article a criterion for notability per WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not a finalist; he's one of 64 contestants (not the same thing at all). If he does become a finalist, that'll be the time to revisit a deletion decision. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable contestant and youtube personality. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 09:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to cite from Wikipedia notability guidelines and reliable sources anything that support this? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to sources, this individual has been eliminated from competition. Never a finalist. Nothing even approaching a reliable source on the page. A reasonable search doesn't help much. Whatever notability the subject can claim is from one event; only sources I can find relate to his participation in the The Voice. BusterD (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom: non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random juxtaposition[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously prodded and contested, recently I prodded it again without knowing about the previous nomination. The article is a sub-stub; this page actually contains no useful information that is not conveyed by its title; "See also" list constitutes most of it, and it seems to be built largely at random; basically, this is not an article. Also, no sources. Matma Rex pl.wiki talk 09:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please be the first to point out that this title appears to be a random juxtaposition of an adjective and a noun? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no reference given at all I see no reason for the subject's notability. Besides, the article is no more than a dictionary entry. SirAppleby (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly an article could be written, but this is just a dicdef and I see no clear way to improve it. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Story Never Told Chapter 2: Bread And Circuses[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album suffering from WP:TOOSOON, not even released yet. Article serves as WP:ADVERT without WP:RS to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Article was created by a WP:SPA with no other edits; thus, possible WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep:I'm not sure whether this will satisfy the requirements, but there is some new coverage for this album, and a tracklist has been released. HipHopDX, XXL, and The Source have all covered this album. I'm not sure if Rapzilla is okay also. I was the one who submitted the tip, but it had nothing to do with trying to get this album on Wikipedia. The bigger issue with that one is it is just a summary of The Source article. But the first three should be good.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - As a result of the first three references that 3family6 provided, I'm inclined to keeping this article for now. Considering that the release date is a month away, the album may receive additional coverage as time goes. There are far worse articles and we should keep to mind that most hip hop albums won't receive the usual and best coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More information on the album will be put in to place, if the article still isn't up to good standards after the album is released then it should be considered for deletion. JoyRider (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Learning to Play with...[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Nounique names 03:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nounique names 03:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TBr and ley 03:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't enough sources to support an appropriate article. I recovered the dead link here and, surprisingly, I found this Latvian music website which supports the release year and record label but would probably be insufficient. Additionally, Billboard shows that the album never charted so that would be another cause of few results. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.